If you want BS or Political Correctness you have come to the wrong place.

FAQ How can you be an atheist Jew?

An atheist is one who disbelieves in (or denies) the existence of God, Gods, and other supernatural beings.
A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew, or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

August 6, 2012

Many a times I've encountered a silly creationist who tries to counter the what would it take for you to accept evolution with a what would it take for you to believe in God retort.

It seems that for many a creationist, they would need to see a monkey give birth to a human. In other words, there is no chance they'll accept reality. I'm not as rigid in my disbelief, all I need is some evidence. Even evidence of the supernatural could lead me to a vague state of theism.

For example, I'm sitting at my desk in my home office, how about God or some other invisible boogie man opening my little bar fridge up right now and float a Pepsi across the room? I'll even open it myself.

There are cameras everywhere, how come there is no credible supernatural event caught on camera? I wonder why? Still, I'm open to it happening, it is in our genes to buy into miraculous explanations. Lightning couldn't be properly explained by our ancestors, so it had to have a supernatural explanation. Unfortunately today, there seems to be a scientific explanation for everything.

One more slightly related thing. I kind of think that those who pray understand either deep down or even closer to the surface, that prayer doesn't work. Why is it that it is acceptable to pray for a cure when it come to internal disease, or even praying for some good fortune or a job, but nobody ever prays that someone who loses a limb will have their limb grow back. Is that something God just can't do, or does God only do things that can also have a scientific explanation?

July 1, 2012

So far, Mitt Romney has pretty much avoided having to appease the Religious Right. In fact, he has their vote sewn up because the RR is so much anti-Obama, his opposing candidate only needs to accept Jesus as being a magical type of guy to win them over.

This means that Romney, if he is smart, could actually go after a left leaning Republican as his VP nomination.

Still, there will be some appeasing. It will interesting to see if Romney flip flops on his acceptance of evolution. He is bound to be asked again.

Anyway, this Seth Macfarlane short is definitely worthy of sending to your anti-evolution friends and relatives. Enjoy:

June 11, 2012

Considering the Daffy Duckonian beliefs the Mormons have when it comes to their religion, especially its roots, I find it encouraging that they can actually allow for evolution to have happened.

5 years ago, Mitt Romney gave his views regarding evolution in a NY Times article:

“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe,” Mr. Romney said in an interview this week. “And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”

He was asked: Is that intelligent design?

“I’m not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design,” he said. “But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.”

While governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney opposed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

“In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed,” he said. “If we’re going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that’s for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies
class.”

Intelligent design is typically defined as the claim that examination of nature points to the work of an intelligent designer, as opposed to the utterly random, naturalistic processes that are taught as part of evolutionary theory. Critics have called intelligent design a thinly disguised version of creationism, which takes a literal approach to the creation account in Genesis, that the earth was created in six days and is less than 10,000 years old.

Mr. Romney said he was asked about his belief in evolution when he was interviewed by faculty members for highest honors designations before his graduation from Brigham Young University.

He told his interviewers that he did not believe there was a “conflict between true science and true religion,” he said.

“True science and true religion are on exactly the same page,” he said. “they may come from different angles, but they reach the same conclusion. I’ve never found a conflict between the science of evolution and the belief that God created the universe. He uses scientific tools to do his work.”

The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints has no definitive position on evolution, and church leaders have disagreed on the issue over the years.

Mr. Romney said his answer was satisfactory to faculty members. “They teach evolution at B.Y.U.,” he said.

The big question is how much is Romney going to change or fuzz his words from 2007 to kiss up to the Religious Right. I'm hoping he won't, but I doubt it. One thing that is almost for certain, his selection for Vice President will not accept evolution at all. Sad, but that is how America politics rolls.

May 30, 2012

With a $15 billion deficit, Ontario's financial state is in a mess, and the Ontario Liberal government is squarely to blame as they have been in power for the past 9 years. The biggest problem is the growth in the public sector. Unions and steady raises has created a ridiculous situation where 70,000 Ontario public sector employees make over $100,000 a year, and even more unfathomable is the fact that on average a public sector employee makes 27% more money than a private sector worker doing the same job.

Teachers, for example, are overpaid, and over compensated with oodles of sick days and a great pension plan. Yeah, teachers are important, but I strongly believe that public sector workers should only get paid what they could make on a good day in the private sector.

This situation has all to do with economic cycles. In bad cycles, private sector employees don't see steady wage increases, but the Ontario government kept giving and giving and giving no matter what was happening in the real world.

The Liberal Party's conceitedness and corruptness has also given the Ontario taxpayer fits, as we have to pay for their mistakes like ORNGE and Ehealth. As a minority government right now, they are trying to push through a budget that was the product of zero public consultation.

There were recommendations to get out the hole made in the Drummond Report which came out a couple of months ago, but the Liberals have cherry picked it to death. Bottom line, the day after the budget was outlined, Ontario's credit rating tanked.

One of the recommendations was to eliminate full day kindergarten, a move which would save the province $1.5 billion over the next few years. But noooo. The Dalton McGuinty run Liberals would not go there.

The absurdity of stating that this budget was full of tough decisions while keeping full day kindergarten is a reason why this government has to go. The argument for full day kindergarten is that kids who participate in it are better integrated in grade 1, 2, and even 3. So what? If you put a kid in school as a 3 year old, they would be even better prepared for grade 1, etc. It doesn't mean that a province in debt should pay for the luxury.

Everyone I know, including my nephews and nieces, are all products of half day kindergarten. They all function very well in society. All I can remember from half day kindergarten was tasting paste and getting a mat to have a daily nap on. It is nothing but glorified day care.

The Liberal Party has a history of overspending and making irresponsible dirty deals, so why are they in power?

Main reason is that they are actually better for the economy than the NDP would be, as that party is completely in bed with the Unions and their only way to straighten out Ontario's finances would be to overtax the rich and private sector businesses. Way too much socialism, even for Canada. And their way of doing things would only make the economy worse.

That leaves the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. They are all for privatizing much of the public sector, thus causing a smaller government. But their biggest problem is that they can't seem to get out of their own way when it comes to pandering to the religious base in Ontario. This was completely evident when then PC leader John Tory announced he would fund religious schools if elected. He drove off most independents (who are socially liberal, yet pro business like myself). I had no choice but to vote Liberal for the first time in my life that year.

So now, with Liberals at an all time low in popularity, the issue of anti-bullying has come up in Ontario. Spurred on by the media reports of gay kids committing suicide, the Liberal government wants to allow anti-homophobic groups to be created in any school and if desired by the students in it, can also use the word gay in their group title. Sounds like a no brainer. The NDP support it too. But the Conservatives are making it an issue. What is it going to get them to stay away from social issues if their input is based on a bigoted bible? They need to shut up. They aren't going to lose the conservative vote, just as Romney will not lose the conservative vote in the USA no matter how much he respects separation of church and state.

But Ontario is still not all separation of church and state. Due to a deal made when Ontario was initially made a province, Catholic schools get to be publicly funded. It is now 2012, and it would definitely make financial sense to end this relationship, but no leader has the guts to do it.

The Catholic school board though is whining about the anti-bullying law. McGuinty has got one thing right when he told the Catholic board to basically go to hell: “I’m accountable to all faiths, I’m accountable to people of no faith. I’m accountable to all parents.”

And yes, if they don't comply, it is time to pull the plug on their funding. Though the government is not saying there is a threat of any kind going on. I think the Catholics know they could put their status in jeopardy so it is all bark for them. The result will be kind of funny though: A gay alliance group in a Catholic school...I can't wait.

The other thing that irks me about Ontario is that The Lord's Prayer still starts off the Ontario Legislature each morning. WTF is that? It isn't right, but it just shows that we are still a province of wimps when it comes to full separation of church and state.

May 13, 2012

I find it pathetic, that by admitting that he personally supports gay marriage, Barack Obama may have actually cost himself the next election.

Well I guess he could have admitted worse, that he was agnostic or an atheist. He has made it tough on the people who insist he is a Muslim though.

It is a disgusting mindset to worry oneself to death about a couple of guys or a couple of women getting married.

First off, gays have the right to be as miserable as married straight guys like me. Kidding aside, gays deserve every legal right as a human being as everyone else. It is only common sense.

Secondly, no matter how much certain people need to believe it, homosexuality is not a choice 95%+ of the time. Scientific research has put the choice thingy to rest. Homosexuality is instilled in certain fetuses due to a combination of genes and womb environmental factors.

And then there is the bible, which condones polygamy and slavery, but has a bad couple of words about guys lying next to each other. It is completely hypocritical of the apologists who dismiss slavery and polygamy as being a sign of the times, but refuse to dismiss that God might have just only hated gays when the fictional Zombie Jesus and fictional Moses were gallivanting around.

Finally, there is the whine about traditional marriage. I did some research, and the best I can tell is that marriage was invented by the ancient Egyptians as a way to keep wealth within the family, so brothers married sisters, and fathers married daughters, etc.

Marriage in the bible then "evolved" when men bought women from families in order to experience wedding bliss.

So that is traditional marriage. Of course, the Mormon idea of traditional marriage is having more than one wife. Lets see Romney have the guts to be true to his religion and publicly endorse polygamy.

Actually, those who are intolerant of gays really should endorse gay marriage. I had a math teacher back in high school back around 1979, Mr. Minty. He did a 10 minute "monologue" during home room time prior to class that almost never had to do with math. He definitely taught me to think out of the box.

His theory regarding homosexuality was that the more it was not publicly accepted, the more likely the next generations would have more gays in the population as homosexuals would be prone to marrying the opposite sex and having kids. Of course, his theory was based on the gay gene, which I believe has quite a lot of scientific support going for it.

The opposite would be true too. Take the ancient Greek society for instance. When homosexuality is accepted, gays tend to stay out of the future gene pool.

So come on Religious Right. Think of the future. Support gay marriage.